Feb. 16 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Representative Chris Van Hollen
scoffed at House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s recent bid to
remake the Republican Party as little more than public relations
while expressing a willingness to consider one Republican
proposal to restructure Medicare.

“I saw some new words and sort of a softer image, saying
things like ‘we’ve got to smile more,’” yet “you’ve got to
change the product, not just the salesmanship,” Van Hollen said
in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital
With Al Hunt,” airing this weekend.

Still, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee said
he’s willing to consider combining Medicare’s Part A and B,
which pay for hospital and doctors’ services, to wring
inefficiencies out of the health-care program for the aged. “I
would not say ‘no’ off the cuff to that kind of idea,” Van
Hollen said.

The Maryland congressman expressed disappointment with
President Barack Obama’s new advocacy group Organizing for
Action’s reported unwillingness to publish a comprehensive list
of its financial donations.

“I would urge them to have disclosure,” he said.
“Everybody should be disclosing.”

Van Hollen predicted that $85 billion in spending cuts,
called a “sequester,” scheduled to begin March 1 will take
effect, at least temporarily, before Republicans agree on a
compromise plan.

‘Enough Pain’

“My gut feeling is that they will not compromise before
March 1 and then the question is, once the sequester begins to
kick in, whether there will be enough pain for them to agree
they have to compromise,” he said.

Echoing Obama’s State of the Union address, Van Hollen said
Democrats are willing to consider hundreds of billions of
dollars in Medicare cuts under the right circumstances. Any
reductions would have to be paired with tax increases on the
wealthy, he said.

“It is totally unfair to consider asking somebody who has
a median income of $22,000 on Medicare to see some change when
you’re not asking millionaires to pay the same effective rate as
their secretaries, applying the Buffett rule,” he said,
referring to a proposed minimum tax, named for billionaire
investor Warren Buffett, on those with the highest incomes.

While Democrats have opposed House Budget Committee
Chairman Paul Ryan’s proposal to revamp the $600 billion
Medicare program by giving future seniors vouchers with which to
buy private insurance, Van Hollen said he’s willing to consider
different changes.

Medicare Changes

In a speech last week at the Washington-based American
Enterprise Institute, Cantor, a Virginia Republican, called the
division between Medicare’s Part A and B “arbitrary.” He said
lawmakers could “modernize Medicare so it isn’t so complicated
for seniors or health-care providers and make it easier for them
to get the care they need in a cost-effective manner.”

Van Hollen agreed “there may be ways to do it and make the
program, overall, more efficient” though “the devil is
entirely in the details.” Lawmakers considered the idea last
year as part of the deficit negotiations led by Vice President
Joe Biden, he said.

Van Hollen also said he’s willing to consider clamping down
on “Medigap” supplemental policies that some experts blame for
increasing Medicare costs because, by covering some of the
program’s cost-sharing requirements, they give beneficiaries
less reason to consider the price of their care. Democrats also
want to require pharmaceutical companies to offer bigger rebates
on drugs sold through the government, said Van Hollen.

Immigration Measure

On immigration, Van Hollen predicted that House Speaker
John Boehner would allow a vote on a bill if it first gets
through the Senate, even if it doesn’t have the support of a
majority of House Republicans.

“There are enough voices in the Republican caucus in the
House that would insist on bringing that bill to a vote, along
with Democrats and the public,” he said. Any plan ought to
include a way for undocumented immigrants to become citizens, he
said.

“Otherwise, you end up with a system where you have sort
of, you know, two classes of people in this country,” Van
Hollen said.

Obama supporters set up Organizing for Action to help push
his second-term legislative agenda.

As a “social welfare” advocacy group -- like the
Republican-leaning Americans for Prosperity and other groups
Obama has criticized as shadowy -- it isn’t legally required to
disclose its donors.

Advocacy Group

The group says on its website it “will make full and
regular disclosures over the course of the year of donations
received.” The information will be posted periodically, though
the schedule hasn’t been determined. It’s also unclear how
specific the group will be in linking names with dollar amounts.

The Los Angeles Times reported the group will list donors
by the general size of their contributions while stopping short
of saying exactly how much each gave. The group didn’t respond
to a request for comment.

Van Hollen, who’s pushing legislation to require more
disclosure of political donations, said transparency will come
when Congress changes the law.

“People say that, you know, they want to play by the same
rules, which is why we should change the rules,” he said.
“Then everybody would be required to tell the American people
who’s funding these campaigns and these ads.”